Commonwealth Court hears argument on challenge to 2nd-degree murder penalty

An attorney for the Pennsylvania Parole Board argued Monday that Commonwealth Court is not the right place to hear a challenge to the state’s mandatory life-without-parole penalty for second-degree murder.

Six people serving that sentence filed a petition against the state Board of Probation and Parole in July, arguing that punishment is unconstitutional and violates the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

In Pennsylvania, about 1,100 people are serving life without parole for second-degree, or felony, murder, which is the death of someone during the commission of a crime. That includes 152 people from Allegheny County and nine from Westmoreland County.

In the current case, the lead petitioner, Marie Scott, was a lookout in a robbery in Philadelphia in which her co-defendant killed a gas station attendant.

Scott has been in state prison for 47 years.

In their petition, the inmates serving life without parole said that they did not intend to kill anyone.

The parole board’s attorney, Ronald Eisenberg, who argued before Commonwealth Court, said the case ought to be dismissed because the court has no jurisdiction.

Instead, he said the question of constitutionality goes to the legality of the sentence, which is not heard in that venue. Instead, those issues should proceed via the Post Conviction Relief Act and be heard in Common Pleas Court, to be followed by the state Superior and Supreme courts for any appeals.

Bret Grote, who represents the petitioners, disagreed.

“This court can strike down unconstitutional statutes,” he said.

Under Pennsylvania law, no person serving a life sentence is eligible for parole. However, Grote argued the statute serves no legitimate penological interest.

He said Commonwealth Court should strike down the parole statute. Then, he continued, the parole board should create its own rules and regulations as to when a person convicted of felony murder is eligible for consideration.

Grote said the petitioners are not challenging the constitutionality of a life sentence — only the prohibition on parole for second-degree murder.

Eisenberg argued that any reform to Pennsylvania’s felony murder law must be done through the legislative process.

He told the court that Attorney General Josh Shapiro has made it known he believes reform is necessary. However, until that occurs, the proper process is commutation through the parole board, Eisenberg said.

Shapiro has voted for commutation 40 times, including for two of the petitioners in this case, he said.

Reid Evans, 59, and his brother, Wyatt Evans, 58, were convicted in 1981 of robbing a Philadelphia man of his wallet, watch and car, according to the petition. The victim died of a heart attack later that day, and the brothers were found guilty of second-degree murder under the theory that the robbery caused the heart attack.

The parole board recommended commutation for them in September, but the governor has not signed the required paperwork for their release.

After oral arguments, Grote said the notion of using commutation when more than 1,100 people are incarcerated for second-degree murder in Pennsylvania is “absurd.”

Normita Jackson, one of the petitioners, was convicted in Allegheny County. She has been in prison for 23 years after she invited a man, Henry Egbo, into her home so her co-defendant could rob him. The co-defendant, however, killed Egbo instead. The two, along with Jackson’s mother, Rose Buckner, were caught when they used Egbo’s credit cards to make big-ticket purchases in the hours after his death.